from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept

A [UK] soldier who wrote of murdering immigrants and who praised Adolf Hitler has been jailed for two years after building a viable nailbomb packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause.

Here's a clue:

Ryan McGee, 20, described by his defence team as "a bit of a loner", wrote in a journal: "I vow to drag every last immigrant into the fires of hell with me."

If you're still unsure, maybe this will help:

He downloaded a video of two bound and gagged men beneath a swastika flag, one being beheaded and the other killed by a gunshot to the head and went online to tell people to do something if they hated immigration.

It had decided not to prosecute McGee as a terrorist because "it was never McGee’s intention to use the device for any terrorist or violent purpose, and that he had no firm intention to activate the device."

Presumably he built the nailbomb "packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause" purely as an intellectual challenge, or maybe to give to his mother to use as a flower stand. Still, this refusal to prosecute such behavior as "terrorism" is rather curious in an age when so many harmless activities are viewed with suspicion and alarm. A cynic might almost think it had something to do with the race of the person involved.

from the the-S's-stand-for-'stupid' dept

You don't have to be affiliated with any known terrorist group to be added to the government's terrorist watchlist. The Intercept's publication of the numbers behind the massive amount of people the government's keeping an eye on made that perfectly clear. A full 40% of the list -- 288,000 people -- are there without any particular justification. The agencies making these nominations clearly can't articulate why certain people should receive enhanced searches and questioning each and every time they seek to board a domestic flight. But they nominate these people anyway, using something no more scientific (or counter-terroristic) than a hunch.

Terrorists hate humans so much we would physically block exit points in the event of a crash and/or fire.

They make you do that weird verbal confirmation thing after the fight attendant recites that exit row speech, and we’re known for only speaking Arabic.

The TSA just likes making stupid rules vacant of any rationale.

"Stupid rules vacant of any rationale" aptly describes a large swath of the Terrorist Watchlist, including Young's 4-S status, which prevents him from utilizing technological advancements like checking in electronically using a mobile device or a kiosk.

As far as Young can tell, it's a nearly two-decade-old misdemeanor that's keeping him from traveling without additional molestation.

His full time job is running an online business, but he is also a prominent animal activist; the latter is what garners him the extra TLC from the TSA. The property crime for which he was convicted dates back to 1997 when he went on a cross-country road trip freeing minks from fur farms in three states. His weapon of mass destruction was a pair of bolt cutters. On the lam for a number of years, he was apprehended and tried in 2005, and found guilty of “animal extortion terrorism.”

"Animal extortion terrorism" isn't covered under the guidelines for the Terrorism Watchlist. In fact, Young was only ever convicted of a misdemeanor (pleading down from a felony) and served on two years for his federal crime. But that's still enough to make him a feared traveler, one who is never to be trusted, not even 17 years removed from the "crime spree" that first drew the government's attention. While the prosecutor tried to connect Young with a group the DHS actually recognizes as domestic terrorists (the Animal Liberation Front), it didn't stick. Young denies any connection with the animal rights extremists.

There's another reason Young is blogging about his experiences: this very public outing of his TSA-stained laundry makes it that much tougher for the US government to simply "disappear" him, air travel-wise.

According to the Intercept, there were 16 people on the No-Fly list in 2001; in 2013, it had exploded to 47,000. “I’m worried the government will slowly move people from the Selectee list to the No-Fly list,” Young says. “I want a podium to speak from in case that does happen to me.”

As has been noted here, the No-Fly list is an unconstitutional joke. The "redress process" is so horribly ineffective that a court actually declared it to be a violation of Americans' civil rights. The Terrorism Watchlist is not only broader, but it's possibly more damaging. While it won't actually prevent you from flying (provided you don't mind every trip to the airport being the Full TSA Security Theater Experience), it does open your life up to a whole lot more government scrutiny.

Screeners are also instructed to collect data on any “pocket litter,” scuba gear, EZ Passes, library cards, and the titles of any books, along with information about their condition—”e.g., new, dog-eared, annotated, unopened.” Business cards and conference materials are also targeted, as well as “anything with an account number” and information about any gold or jewelry worn by the watchlisted individual. Even “animal information”—details about pets from veterinarians or tracking chips—is requested. The rulebook also encourages the collection of biometric or biographical data about the travel partners of watchlisted individuals.

This is from the same rulebook and documents that admitted that nearly 300,000 of the 680,000 people on the government's Terrorist Watchlist have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." Just another ridiculous facet of the Dept. of Homeland Security's security theater: loading up on unrelated "extras" just so it can boast it has a "cast of thousands" (and demand a budget of billions!). No terrorism experience necessary. Enjoy your flight!

from the not-because-it-helps-terrorists dept

Having already discussed The Intercept's publication of the federal government's guidelines for declaring people terrorists to put on its various watchlists (including the infamous "no fly list"), it's raising some serious questions about why the DOJ had been fighting so hard to keep these guidelines from coming out. As we've discussed, in basically any case challenging the various government watchlists, the DOJ has freaked out and claimed "state secrets" to try to get the cases thrown out entirely.

I agree with the FBI that the Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed, for the reasons discussed in the FBI's classified declaration, could cause significant harm to national security.... If the Guidance were released, it would provide a clear roadmap to undermine the Government's screening efforts, a key counterterrorism measure, and thus, its disclosure reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to national security.

Of course, now that the Watchlisting Guidance is out, we can take a look and see if that's actually true. And... Holder's statements, not surprisingly, appear to be completely bogus. The Guidelines are so vague and so broad that it gives no real indication of how to get around them or whether or not any particular person is likely to be placed on the list.

What the guidelines do show, however, is the level of extra scrutiny people on the list are subject to. And, as we noted, much of that certainly appears to violate the 4th Amendment (or, at the very least, open itself up to a pretty clear 4th Amendment challenge in the courts). So, once again, it seems like Holder's real reason to declare "state secrets" had little to do with "national security" and a hell of a lot to do with "DOJ security" in keeping its illegal and unconstitutional practices from further public and judicial scrutiny.

from the different-story dept

In this edition of "Real Life Soap Operas, as Seen Via Court Filings," we have a case involving someone putting a severed horse head into a pool, anonymous accusations, family members accusing family members, blog comments calling someone a terrorist and... wait... a severed horse head in a pool? Yup. From the ruling in LeBlanc v. Skinner at the New York State Supreme Court:

The defendant Wayne Skinner, a former Town Supervisor of the Town of Wawayanda, and his wife, the defendant Karen Skinner (hereinafter together the Skinner defendants), were involved in a number of Town policy disagreements with the plaintiff, David LeBlanc. Wayne Skinner was elected to his position as a Democrat. The plaintiff, a Wawayanda businessman, attended numerous Town Board meetings, voicing his concerns over a variety of issues, including property taxes, and donated money to one of Wayne Skinner's Republican political rivals.

Nonparty Gail Soro was one of Wayne Skinner's colleagues, and a Wawayanda Town Board member. Soro likewise was an elected Democrat. In July 2006, Soro discovered a severed horse head in her swimming pool. It was never determined who was responsible for the incident. Nonetheless, as could be expected after any incident with such cinematic bravado, public comment ensued. Of relevance here were a number of blog entries posted on a web site allegedly dedicated to community issues and local government, and a number of comments on the local newspaper's web site. These blog entries and comments accused the plaintiff of being responsible for the horse head incident.

Yes, this obvious reference to that classic scene from The Godfather caught some attention from the wider community, and the court. As the ruling notes in a footnote:

While the discovery of any deliberately placed mutilated animal carcass in a family swimming pool would be shocking and noteworthy, the choice of a severed horse head immediately evokes to many the infamous scene from Mario Puzo's novel, "The Godfather," as immortalized in the film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The scene, probably one of the most iconic in cinematic history, has come to exemplify an act of intimidation through violence, a reminder of power, and a warning that a request or "offer" from a Godfather or leader of an organized crime family should not be "refused."

That said, the case has little to do with the actual severed horse head, but rather the many, many accusations that flew around following its discovery:

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, with the assistance of Hawkins, the Skinner defendants posted several defamatory statements on the Internet regarding the plaintiff. More specifically, the first and second causes of action in the amended verified complaint alleged that Hawkins, at the request and direction of the Skinner defendants, posted two allegedly defamatory statements regarding the plaintiff on August 29, 2007, and October 6, 2007, respectively, on the now-defunct web site www.wawayandafirst.blogspot.com (hereinafter the Wawayandafirst blogspot). In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had posted the following comment on October 30, 2007, at www.forums.recordonline.com, a site run by the area newspaper (hereinafter the newspaper site): "We all know who was behind the Horse Head . . . there is only one man around town dumb enough, violent enough and with a vendetta to do that . . . Dave LeBlanc . . . I hope all this negative publicity on him destroys his business." The fourth cause of action alleged that the defendants posted the following comments on the newspaper site on October 30, 2007: "Dave LeBlanc is a terrorist" and "Who was the one who threw the horse head in Gail's pool . . . check it out: . . . wawayandafirstblogspot.com."

The case gets even more complicated when it is explained that "Hawkins" is the nephew of the "Skinner defendants" named above -- and while they were all named as defendants, they quickly turned on each other, with Hawkins claiming he posted stuff online, but entirely at the direction of his aunt and uncle. The Skinners hit back with a variety of claims as well.

But the two key points are that the court noted:

Calling someone a "terrorist" online isn't defamation.

Accusing someone of severing a horse's head and dumping it in a pool, however, could be defamation.

It's really the first one that's important -- as that scenario is somewhat more likely to repeat itself than the second issue:

Internet forums are venues where citizens may participate and be heard in free debate involving civic concerns. It may be said that such forums are the newest form of the town meeting. We recognize that, although they are engaging in debate, persons posting to these sites assume aliases that conceal their identities or "blog profiles." Nonetheless, falsity remains a necessary element in a defamation claim and, accordingly, "only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action" (600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, 139, cert denied 508 US 910; see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153). Within this ambit, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the accusation on the newspaper site that the plaintiff was a "terrorist" was not actionable. Such a statement was likely to be perceived as "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet" (Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v Bresler, 398 US 6, 14; see Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co., 497 US 1; Immuno AG. v Moor—Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 254, cert denied 500 US 954). This conclusion is especially apt in the digital age, where it has been commented that readers give less credence to allegedly defamatory Internet communications than they would to statements made in other milieus (see Sandals Resorts Intl., Ltd. v Google, Inc., 86 AD3d 32, 43-44, quoting Jennifer O'Brien, Note, Putting a Face to a [Screen] Name: The First Amendment Implications of Compelling ISPS to Reveal the Identities of Anonymous Internet Speakers in Online Defamation Cases, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 2745 [2002]). Accordingly, we conclude that this statement constitued an expression of opinion, and, as such, is nonactionable.

As Eric Goldman highlights, it's good to see more and more courts recognizing that random insults thrown out in online forums shouldn't be treated the same way as, say, a formal accusation in the press. Context matters:

Of course, name calling is one thing. Accusing someone of dumping a severed horse's head in a pool -- if the horse's head really did show up in a pool -- people might take that accusation a bit more seriously. And, as in this case, it could lead to a defamation claim not getting tossed out so easily.